United States Ground Forces

[DrainBamage]

You always try to distract from the topic. You begin with source bashing.

This isn't true, when you provided a CBS source about the attack I embraced it, running along with several more links from same. Hilariously you abandoned it when you realized your cursory google search accidentally brought you a source that didn't fit your narrative.

Isn´t The Politico a newspaper in the center of the political spectrum? What agenda should stand behind this article? Maybe they are patriots, who are worried about a lacking presence of military in their country.

It was an op-ed from 2015, dumbass. Do you actually live in a world where anything you can google up is gospel, and anyone who disagreed with your Google-Fu results is attacking the source and distracting from the topic, and every debate comes down to who can google first to set precedent?

You've demonstrated you're incapable of holding your own in here, all you've got is desperate internet searches and wild accusations when others don't accept them.

 

[Bleipriester]

You always try to distract from the topic. You begin with source bashing.

This isn't true, when you provided a CBS source about the attack I embraced it, running along with several more links from same. Hilariously you abandoned it when you realized your cursory google search accidentally brought you a source that didn't fit your narrative.

Isn´t The Politico a newspaper in the center of the political spectrum? What agenda should stand behind this article? Maybe they are patriots, who are worried about a lacking presence of military in their country.

It was an op-ed from 2015, dumbass.

How does this change the government figures, flash bulb?

 

[DrainBamage]

Russian Mercs are not the topic here. Go make your free Russian Mercs thread.

They certainly are. You created a thread about US ground forces and included a comment about what if the Russians are coming.

The most recent example of US versus Russians was a couple dozen US spec ops troops fighting off (and decimating) several hundred attackers that included Russian mercenaries. You also provided links trying to establish whether Russian mercenaries were present, which means you actually engaged in that angle of the thread. Obviously you wish you'd never gone there, in fact you probably wish you'd never started this thread since it blew up in your face so much.

 

[DrainBamage]

How does this change the government figures, flash bulb?

Which government figures? I asked you to show me the numbers on this alarming drop in troop levels you're referring to, and to demonstrate that it's due to failure to meet recruitment goals, but so far crickets are chirping. So show me the numbers.

 

[gipper]

How does this change the government figures, flash bulb?

Which government figures? I asked you to show me the numbers on this alarming drop in troop levels you're referring to, and to demonstrate that it's due to failure to meet recruitment goals, but so far crickets are chirping. So show me the numbers.

Why argue about this when the much bigger crime was the US and it’s allies arming and supporting ISIS. That is a crime for which no one has yet paid a price for, though thousands died and were misplaced.


How CIA & Allies Helped Jihadists In Syria: French Covert Ops Expert Exposes New Details
In 2012, probably in spring, Obama reluctantly signed a top-secret executive order, of which little is known other than that it authorized the CIA to provide “non-lethal support” to the rebels in Syria. In concrete terms, then, what the CIA did was to link up its Qatari and Saudi allies with a number of arms manufacturers in the Balkans (Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, etc.). With the backing of NATO, which controls arms exports from the Balkans via EUFOR, Qatari and Saudi secret services began buying up weapons and ammunition from these countries to illegally equip anti-Assad rebels.

A few months later, in October 2012, the New York Times revealed that this vast CIA-sponsored arms trafficking was mainly going to support jihadist groups in Syria, while arms exports by air were growing, with weapons being injected into Syrian territory from “operation rooms” in Turkey and Jordan, through the FSA (“Free Syria Army”) and local arms traffickers.

Finally, it turned out that these “operation rooms” were cobbled together by fifteen Western and Middle Eastern intelligence services, including the DGSE(French foreign intelligence service) and MI6, although the we do not yet know exactly what role these various agencies played in this secret war. What is clear — and what I demonstrate in my book with irrefutable evidence —is that tens of thousands of tons of weapons and millions of rounds of ammunition were brought into the Syrian theater of war by this operation. It is also proven that these armaments mostly went to equip jihadist groups, including the terrorist militia which proclaimed itself “Islamic State” in June 2014.

Ultimately, Donald Trump decided to phase out this operation in early summer 2017. This was a major setback for the CIA, as the US President was thereby conceding the defeat of the United States and its partners in the war against Syria and its Russian, Iranian and Lebanese allies.

More...How CIA & Allies Helped Jihadists In Syria: French Covert Ops Expert Exposes New Details

 

[Bleipriester]

How does this change the government figures, flash bulb?

Which government figures? I asked you to show me the numbers on this alarming drop in troop levels you're referring to, and to demonstrate that it's due to failure to meet recruitment goals, but so far crickets are chirping. So show me the numbers.

There are currently about 500.000 US ground troops.
U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers

Venezuela has 2,8 million ground troops and 2 million militiamen plus Republican Guard, all loyal to President Maduro.
Venezuelan Army - Wikipedia
Bolivarian Militia Forces exceed 2 million | Global Daily News

 

[DrainBamage]

There are currently about 500.000 US ground troops.
U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers

Venezuela has 2,8 million ground troops and 2 million militiamen plus Republican Guard, all loyal to President Maduro.
Venezuelan Army - Wikipedia
Bolivarian Militia Forces exceed 2 million | Global Daily News

That's all great, but it doesn't answer my question. Military strength ebbs and flows based on need, you claimed some dramatic reduction in troop strength that your graph doesn't show, in fact your data shows more US Army active duty than there were in 1995. That also calls into question previous info you provided that troops strength was at lowest level in 75 years.

Your pitch was that recruitment issues have forced some dramatic drop in troop level, but when asked to show how you're really floundering here. Even funnier is pointing at Venezuela as if that in any way bolsters your argument.

 

[Bleipriester]

There are currently about 500.000 US ground troops.
U.S. Military Personnel 1954-2014: The Numbers

Venezuela has 2,8 million ground troops and 2 million militiamen plus Republican Guard, all loyal to President Maduro.
Venezuelan Army - Wikipedia
Bolivarian Militia Forces exceed 2 million | Global Daily News

That's all great, but it doesn't answer my question. Military strength ebbs and flows based on need, you claimed some dramatic reduction in troop strength that your graph doesn't show, in fact your data shows more US Army active duty than there were in 1995. That also calls into question previous info you provided that troops strength was at lowest level in 75 years.

Your pitch was that recruitment issues have forced some dramatic drop in troop level, but when asked to show how you're really floundering here. Even funnier is pointing at Venezuela as if that in any way bolsters your argument.

500.000 sounds a lot but they are spread all around the globe. If you want to criticize the used terms, write to the newspaper.

 

[DrainBamage]

500.000 sounds a lot but they are spread all around the globe. If you want to criticize the used terms, write to the newspaper.

You still haven't been able to respond to questions about this dramatic plunge in numbers you brought up, a vague statement ruminating on what 500k sounds like doesn't do it.

Again = you said US army numbers are plunging and implied due to recruitment issues. Show me. Where is the plunge? What percent of that is planned and what is recruitment issues? I think we both know you had no basis, so unless you can google your way to an answer you're just flailing as usual and busted yet again talking out of your ass.

 

[Bleipriester]

500.000 sounds a lot but they are spread all around the globe. If you want to criticize the used terms, write to the newspaper.

You still haven't been able to respond to questions about this dramatic plunge in numbers you brought up, a vague statement ruminating on what 500k sounds like doesn't do it.

Again = you said US army numbers are plunging and implied due to recruitment issues. Show me. Where is the plunge? What percent of that is planned and what is recruitment issues? I think we both know you had no basis, so unless you can google your way to an answer you're just flailing as usual and busted yet again talking out of your ass.

Here it is:

 

[DrainBamage]

Here it is:

Here is what? You were asked to show the dramatically shrinking armed forces , when you couldn't you're now focused on accession ratio. Interesting your same source shows an overall rise in quality of recruits, which might have something to do with the accession ratios.

Was that the point you were trying to make, that quality of USA military personnel has risen? That's what your source says. Worst is army which is still higher than most of it's history with exception of early 90s.

 

[DrainBamage]

Read again: ...dramatically shrinking

Let's get to the bottom of this dramatically shrinking thing you claimed. Offical DoD numbers are here: https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/MRA_Docs/TFM/Reports/Final FY18 DMRR 11Dec2017.pdf?ver=2018-02-03-141625-140

Total Active Military
2016: 1,301,400
2017: 1,308,100
2018: 1,314,000

Clearly your definition of "dramatically shrinking" is different than mine. Let's look at US Army active duty:
2016: 475,400
2017: 476,300
2018: 476,000

So when you say the US military is dramatically shrinking which definitions for dramatic and shrinking are you using? I get that English isn't your first language, I suggest you go make some flash cards with the words dramatic and to shrink, since you need to practice them. Here I'll help you out with one of them:

shrinking /ˈSHriNGkiNG/ adjective
- 1. becoming smaller in size or amount.

 

[Bleipriester]

Here it is:

Here is what? You were asked to show the dramatically shrinking armed forces , when you couldn't you're now focused on accession ratio. Interesting your same source shows an overall rise in quality of recruits, which might have something to do with the accession ratios.

Was that the point you were trying to make, that quality of USA military personnel has risen? That's what your source says. Worst is army which is still higher than most of it's history with exception of early 90s.

The applicants line shows the military cannot cover the needs in the future anymore. Maybe it has something to do with your government´s policies? Or maybe with your government´s attitude towards life? The love, peace and harmony thingy doesn´t work out so well for the military. We got that here too in Germany. The army is fucked.

 

[DrainBamage]

The applicants line shows the military cannot cover the needs in the future anymore.

As long as applicant pool is higher than recruitment needs it depends on the quality of the applicants, only to the logically challenged does a downward trend provide the absoute conclusions you've reached.

The The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act sets goals for force strength, can you point out which year US Army has failed to be at or near that strength? In 2017 the NDAA has a force strength goal of 476k for active duty army, which is right where they closed out 2017. You have lots of theories but they are more based on your retarded world views than reality.

So let me ask for the 10th time... where was the dramatic shrinking of the US Army that you mentioned is happening?

 

[Bleipriester]

The applicants line shows the military cannot cover the needs in the future anymore.

As long as applicant pool is higher than recruitment needs it depends on the quality of the applicants, only to the logically challenged does a downward trend provide the absoute conclusions you've reached.

The The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act sets goals for force strength, can you point out which year US Army has failed to be at or near that strength? In 2017 the NDAA has a force strength goal of 476k for active duty army, which is right where they closed out 2017. You have lots of theories but they are more based on your retarded world views than reality.

So let me ask for the 10th time... where was the dramatic shrinking of the US Army that you mentioned is happening?

Your words have no impact on reality. You have shown an incredible denying skill but that won´t change the many factors that lead to a decreasing number of applicants.
Your "high quality" personnel is a result of the end of the compulsory service. Now you face another result: A lack of applicants. They will have to take anyone. Manga-Girls, Roger, Geezers. Why do you think they are now allowing women and gays?

 

[SandSquid]

The applicants line shows the military cannot cover the needs in the future anymore.

As long as applicant pool is higher than recruitment needs it depends on the quality of the applicants, only to the logically challenged does a downward trend provide the absoute conclusions you've reached.

The The 2017 National Defense Authorization Act sets goals for force strength, can you point out which year US Army has failed to be at or near that strength? In 2017 the NDAA has a force strength goal of 476k for active duty army, which is right where they closed out 2017. You have lots of theories but they are more based on your retarded world views than reality.

So let me ask for the 10th time... where was the dramatic shrinking of the US Army that you mentioned is happening?

Your words have no impact on reality. You have shown an incredible denying skill but that won´t change the many factors that lead to a decreasing number of applicants.
Your "high quality" personnel is a result of the end of the compulsory service. Now you face another result: A lack of applicants. They will have to take anyone. Manga-Girls, Roger, Geezers. Why do you think they are now allowing women and gays?

That happens all the time. Happened in Clinton years when economy was strong. Military ups the bonuses, allows more waivers, starts doing 2-3 year contracts instead of the 4 year ones... Army got 3000-5000 more recruits than expected for 3 straight years. This past year about 6000 under. One thing they are pointing to as well is improving their online recruiters where younger people may want to first talk with a recruiter online rather than going to a recruiting office or in person.

As for Women and homosexuals those were passed when meeting goals. The Recruiting and Retention: Overview of Results for Active and Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel said "Both years were considered very strong for recruiting and retention in the Active and Reserve Components." for the two years before women were allowed into combat roles, and the don't ask don't tell repeal was before that when recruiting was considered strong.

Still doesn't explain how you are still holding onto your lie in this thread about Russian mercs though. Nice attempt at distracting off of your lying though... Bravo on that.

 

[DrainBamage]

Now you face another result: A lack of applicants. They will have to take anyone.

1. US Army is at strength levels set by NDAA.
2. US Army percentage of higher quality recruits has not dropped

Therefore you have again failed, reality has not matched what your faulty logic has arrived at.

So again, since you keep ignoring the question, where is the dramatic shrinking of the US Army that you mentioned?

 

[Bleipriester]

Now you face another result: A lack of applicants. They will have to take anyone.

1. US Army is at strength levels set by NDAA.
2. US Army percentage of higher quality recruits has not dropped

Therefore you have again failed, reality has not matched what your faulty logic has arrived at.

So again, since you keep ignoring the question, where is the dramatic shrinking of the US Army that you mentioned?

The text is the following:
"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"

So I don´t have to prove a claim that you made up.

 

[DrainBamage]

"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"

Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?

 

[Bleipriester]

"The number of Americans eligible to serve in the military is dramatically shrinking"

Okay let's run with this. How many Americans are eligible to serve in the military versus, say, ten years ago?

Dunno. Ask them.